• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not always exact and 프라그마틱 플레이 무료슬롯 - Www.Google.Com.Uy - could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, 프라그마틱 게임 thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and 프라그마틱 슬롯 were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.